Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 Read more: The Courier-Journal 135,629

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Read more
great minds

Monticello, KY

#135895 Aug 13, 2014
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
AAA

United States

#135896 Aug 13, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim to understand, yet do not demonstrate an understanding.
God has absolutely zero evidence of existence. This is why even religion asks for faith.
Evolution has tons of evidence, you just cannot comprehend it. This evidence allows it to be taught in school as fact, not myth.
The bible is religion. Religion is not for government to be promoting.
If you have tons of evidence that is fact, then every atheist should come to the exact same conclusion, which they do not.
That's why you leave yourself loopholes!!

There's no doubt about it,, the THEORY of evolution should NOT be taught as fact!!!

It takes more faith to buy into the religion of evolution,, than it does to be a Christian!! Nothing + Nothing = EVERYTHING we see around us, and EVERYTHING in the universe takes a lot more faith than what I have,
AAA

United States

#135897 Aug 13, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because you are so insanely ignorant of what a scientific theory is, and how factual a scientific theory is, does not mean it is not factual.
It really bothers me that creationists are so ignorant and not educated to what words mean, or what phrases mean. It is like arguing with a five year old. Sorry, but you are just repeating a bunch of stupid creationist propaganda like a robot, and do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You really are not helping your case by constantly showing no understanding of a scientific theory. Read and learn for a change.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. A scientific theory is differentiated from a hypothesis in that a theory must explain actual observations. A theory can be disproven, though in most cases it ceases to be a theory in its current state if it is. A scientific theory is not as clear cut as a scientific fact or law, in that facts and laws must be repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and also be widely accepted to be true by the scientific community.[1][2][3] While some theories are widely accepted to be true, this is not true of all theories.[4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[5][6]
I'm repeating?? LOL!!!
That coming from someone who's been playing the same failing hand on here for more than a year!!

Let's do it like this: you have DOUBT in your own belief!! You leave a loophole, so without a doubt you have DOUBT!!!!

If you had FACTS to work with you would have no DOUBT!! If you believed in your so-called proof, you would have no DOUBT!!

Your DOUBT would keep you from teaching evolution of species as fact!!!
AAA

United States

#135898 Aug 13, 2014
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Hey ignorant one, evolution has nothing to do with how the universe was created.
So now you are saying things didn't evolve?? LOL!
,,,, and you call me ignorant??

If you're going to TRY to go forward with evolution you have to be able to trace it in reverse as well!!
Crystal

Nicholasville, KY

#135899 Aug 13, 2014
religious literacy wrote:
this could be a good thing for the state of Kentucky - there needs to be some structure around how people teach religion in our schools.
No one should be teaching religion in school. It's school. It's for facts, not faith. What about the children of other faiths? And the children with no faith? Why should they have to sit through bible study just to please the Christian parents?
spaceship

Roseville, CA

#135900 Aug 13, 2014
great minds wrote:
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.
Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
God has never been observed. If God exists who created God? The bible has prove to be full of contradictions and errors .

Since you support the Bible. Name the Christian denominations you say are not Christian, I like to know.
AAA

United States

#135901 Aug 13, 2014
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution can be taught as theory.
The same as gravity, gasses, atomic structure, planetary motion, etc.
The Bible fails to come near the giddy heights of theory. In fact, it doesn't even belong on the same shelf.
The Bible belongs next to the Koran, Gitas and other myth books..
It's called the law of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity. People who are less scientifically inclined, and have a lot of FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution would like to call it the "law of evolution", but it is not self-evident. It is a THEORY according to serious scientists.
AAA

United States

#135902 Aug 13, 2014
Crystal wrote:
<quoted text>
No one should be teaching religion in school. It's school. It's for facts, not faith. What about the children of other faiths? And the children with no faith? Why should they have to sit through bible study just to please the Christian parents?
But it's ok for the evolutionist to teach their religion??? After all you did say facts not faith,, and NO ONE can show us any FACTS of evolution of species!!
Why should children have to sit through evolution study if it's not their faith??
spaceship

Roseville, CA

#135903 Aug 13, 2014
Crystal wrote:
<quoted text>
No one should be teaching religion in school. It's school. It's for facts, not faith. What about the children of other faiths? And the children with no faith? Why should they have to sit through bible study just to please the Christian parents?
Good post.
Crystal

Nicholasville, KY

#135904 Aug 13, 2014
yes wrote:
Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.
Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.
A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8
So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!
You clearly no nothing about science or evolution. Please read more about it before you speak. We never claim a living thing comes from a non living thing. Oh and by the way, evolution is a theory AND a fact. Evolution has been proven in certain bacteria (which is living) and strains of diseases, etc
Forget about Atheist, science, and facts for a minute. What about Jewish children, Muslim children, Buddhist, and Pagan children who attend public school? Why should they have to attend classes with Christianity?
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#135905 Aug 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I don't know - they say that is the path to wisdom. It is the fundies who claim to know everything.
You think that the adulteress was Mary Magdalene or that you don't throw stones on a regular basis?
Mary or not... not my point...
Name ONE stone I've thrown!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#135906 Aug 13, 2014
Crystal wrote:
<quoted text>
No one should be teaching religion in school. It's school. It's for facts, not faith. What about the children of other faiths? And the children with no faith? Why should they have to sit through bible study just to please the Christian parents?
Can you say.... "Elective"?
That means that parents, or children that do NOT want it... do NOT have to go!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#135907 Aug 13, 2014
Problem is....
Most of you on here are NOT A-theists....
No, if were just A-theists... you'd probably be gone by now!
No.... you are Anti-theists, as you cannot just post n go...
You have something wrong deep in your soul, probably
a bunch of Backsliders, and cannot stand that anyone
might have something you do not!
We do have something... a Relationship with our God!
Repent... you can have one too!
Yes and Amen

Georgetown, KY

#135908 Aug 13, 2014
God Bless America, and
God bless Israel!
great minds

Monticello, KY

#135909 Aug 13, 2014
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

... it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Crystal

Nicholasville, KY

#135910 Aug 13, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Can you say.... "Elective"?
That means that parents, or children that do NOT want it... do NOT have to go!
Yes I can say elective - classes that you can choose to take or not. There are problems with that still though. First of all elementary schools do not offer elective courses as most middle schools dont either, and most science is learned in early education. Second, are you proposing that we make elective courses for all religion? That tax payers should have to pay for the extra teachers and time should be taken out of a students day to learn about religion. I have a great idea - why dont they learn science, math, reading, and writing at school and they learn about religion at church. Isnt that what its there for? And then I dont have to pay for my kids to be taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and an 800 year old man built a big boat and put millions of animals on it because of a flood that there is no historical or archeological evidence of.
Besides the ridiculous stories, what about the ones that are scientifically incorrect? WHy should my kids learn that?
Crystal

Nicholasville, KY

#135911 Aug 13, 2014
Yes and Amen wrote:
Problem is....
Most of you on here are NOT A-theists....
No, if were just A-theists... you'd probably be gone by now!
No.... you are Anti-theists, as you cannot just post n go...
You have something wrong deep in your soul, probably
a bunch of Backsliders, and cannot stand that anyone
might have something you do not!
We do have something... a Relationship with our God!
Repent... you can have one too!
The problem is that you all actually believe that we want a relationship with your god - we don't. I'm not an Atheist. an A-theist, or s believer in god. And I don't want to believe in god. I'm happy with my religion, I'm happy with science. I don't need you or any other Christian judging me or teaching my kids nonsensical bullshit. Thanks anyway.
AAA

United States

#135912 Aug 13, 2014
great minds wrote:
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:
... it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.
Well Mike and a few other of the evolutional topix geniuses on here must be "way smarter" than those scientist because they say they have evidence, even though it is not fact they've gathered enough non factual evidence that it evolved into fact, therefore it is fact, and they have factual/proof evolution of species is fact! LOL!!

So should we listen to renown scientist, or self proclaimed topix scientist who have evolved their non-factual evidence into fact?

,,,,,,and what about their doubt? How does their doubt fit into their non-factual evolved factual facts? Mike says we're too ignorant to understand the way his non-factual evidence evolved into fact,,, or wait a minute,,, was it we're too ignorant to understand that non-factual evidence turns into fact as long as enough people theorize that those non-factual evidence turns into fact?? LOL!!
great minds

Monticello, KY

#135913 Aug 13, 2014
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.
great minds

Monticello, KY

#135914 Aug 13, 2014
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?

Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.

For more information on ape fossils making monkeys out of humans, see the article Humans are not descended from apes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ashland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
3ds friend code 25 min Streetpass sucks ... 1
Angie burchett 2 hr know her 15
tates lawncare 2 hr Terry 1
Dads that walk out 2 hr wildcat 9
ever heard of someone hurting themselves , to b... 4 hr off topic 4
Marathon employees 5 hr sister golden hair 1,148
Atheist Run Tomorrow! 6 hr love them 6
More from around the web

Ashland People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]